Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 5:19 AM
399 online now:
frako (1 member, 398 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,689 Year: 10,295/21,208 Month: 3,382/2,674 Week: 798/961 Day: 1/109 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 121 of 202 (508696)
05-15-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 5:27 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Of course we need to learn to swim. It is also true kids today of water cultures pick it up naturally before they can walk.

I never was taught to swim. My best stroke is a side stroke, and glide, or a back swim.

Obviously, the Flores Hobbit can race under the water.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:27 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 122 of 202 (508697)
05-15-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 5:27 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Oh boy! we are having a party. The Hobbit was no pack hunter. Not with those flipper feet. No sir!

Then who was making the spearheads and butchering elephants inland, well away from the water? Was there another hominid species on the island that we are not aware of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:27 PM arrogantape has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 123 of 202 (508698)
05-15-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Taq
05-15-2009 5:33 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Like I said, look at their feet. They can't run or even walk gracefully. Laying pit traps on the elephant's paths would do well. Then all they need to do is dispatch the prey, and cut it up.

The island of Flores had no big carnivores. A patient waiting game would suit these little folks good.

Homo Erectus was also in the neighborhood. Maybe not on Flores, but certainly nearby, They had modern feet like our own. They could run, and defend themselves better than the little folk

You just cannot escape this little hominid worked his way over thousands of miles of coastline to reach Indonesia. They did it on abnormally long flat feet. They worked the shoreline. Slam dunk!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 5:33 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:03 PM arrogantape has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 124 of 202 (508725)
05-15-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 5:54 PM


A simple question ... dimorphism
Hi arrogantape,

I see you're back hyping the aquatic ape conjecture again.

You just cannot escape this little hominid worked his way over thousands of miles of coastline to reach Indonesia. They did it on abnormally long flat feet. They worked the shoreline. Slam dunk!

And this explains why Polynesians are better adapted to living in the water than Tibetans, with their webbed feet and hands, their eyes adapted to see underwater, and their lungs adapted for the ability to hold their breath for extended periods ... except they aren't. Unfortunately (for you) Homo floresiensis is off topic on this thread.

The real question is not why humans seem to lack fur (our skin is hairy, and just as hairy as chimps when placed on the scale of mammals size versus hair follicle density), the question is why there is a sexual dimorphism in the hair development patterns of humans.

Cursorial hunting does not explain this - especially when the hunters are the hairier sex.

The Aquatic Ape conjecture does not explain this - again the hunters are the hairier sex.

You need to look at the hair development pattern to understand why there is a difference, and once you have explained that difference the reason for the hairless appearance of humans becomes clear.

Hair development occurs in stages, in humans and in other apes and mammals, and the first stage is called Lanugo hair, and this is the fine hair that covers a fetus, and that normally falls out before birth or shortly afterward. The next stage is vellus hair, which is also fine and is the hair commonly found on children. Terminal hair is, as the name suggests, the final stage of hair growth. The hair on your head, pubic hair (after puberty), armpit hair and the beards of men are typical examples of terminal hair on humans.

Male humans have predominantly much more terminal hair than females, and this hair is seen on arms, chest, backs and legs, in a wide range of distributions.

Female humans have predominantly vellus hair except on the head, pubic area and armpits, and this pattern is consistent for females.

This conformity in females compared to the extreme variation in men, suggests that the operating selection for lack of visible hair is occurring in the selection of females.

It is considered abnormal for a woman to have hair similar to men. There is a medical term to describe this condition in women, while there is no medical condition that describes men as having "female pattern" hair. The variation we see in men is greater than this "abnormal" condition in women, and there is general gradations throughout the population between the hairiest males and the "hairlessist" males.

Females don't grow terminal hair on their bodies because the hair development pattern is arrested while they still have the childhood vellus hair pattern. This adequately explains why humans appear to have less hair: selection has caused the development of hair to terminal hair to be arrested. The next question is why did selection make this arrested development to be better suited for survival or reproduction.

As survival selection does not distinguish be sexes, it becomes clear that sexual selection is operating. There is further evidence that this selection is still occurring, in the shaving behavior of women compared to men, and in the preponderance of shaved bodies in porn (as an indicator of sexual attractiveness).

Note that terminal hair, other than on the head, normally grows after puberty - after becoming able to reproduce - and there is a common observation in organisms, that once reproduction is reached, the organisms stop body development, "arrested" at the stage of development where they become able to reproduce.

Conclusion: sexual selection for young appearing women has driven selection of adult women with childlike hair patterns, resulting in arrested development of hair at the vellus stage in women. Such selection is not operating on males, hence the wide variety in patterns of male hair and the much less degree of hairlessness in males compared to females. The hairlessness of males is a result of shared genes with women, genes that are affected by the selection in females and then shared with the males.

Any questions?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : tie to puberty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:54 PM arrogantape has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 8:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 125 of 202 (508731)
05-15-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
05-15-2009 8:03 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
Hi RAZD,

I can't see how Florensis is off topic. He was obviously more adapted to swimming rather than walking. It is my belief, water acclimation encouraged bipedalism, smooth body lines, and hairlessness.

We are not H Habilis. Ergaster, a lankier version of Homo, bridged Habilis to H Sapiens, as it looks now. Since we were H Habilis, the swimmer, we have evolved much better wrist and ankle/foot motion to bring it to any comers. Sure, more sexual dimorphism would occur. Like you say, men run the breadth between hairless to fur balls. The need for sleek bods was greatly reduced when we became predominately terrestrial.

I don't think claiming we all have just as much hair as chimp is constructive in this debate. Having peach fuzz is what makes us look naked. In the water, the peach fuzz has negligable drag. Olympian swimmer have noted faster times swimming nude.

I think it is getting harder for folks to turn their shoulder to the semi-aquatic ape. H Florensis has drastically changed the game rules.

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 8:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 9:05 PM arrogantape has responded
 Message 127 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 9:06 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 126 of 202 (508735)
05-15-2009 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 8:25 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
Hi again, arrogant ape,

I don't think claiming we all have just as much hair as chimp is constructive in this debate. Having peach fuzz is what makes us look naked.

Except that it shows that we have not lost hair, only that the hair we have is arrested at a level of hair development normally found in children, and thus it explains the "peach fuzz" hair that is universal in women and visible in men wherever terminal hair does not grow.

Aquatic species, on the other hand, don't have "peach fuzz" if they don't have terminal hair - they either have fur or they don't.

There is also no example (I am aware of, anyway) of such sexual dimorphism in the hair\hairless patterns of a single aquatic species.

Thus the apparent hairlessness of humans does not match the fur\hairless pattern of any aquatic mammals.

I think it is getting harder for folks to turn their shoulder to the semi-aquatic ape.

Only if you ignore all the evidence that contradicts this concept. What you "think," curiously, has no effect whatsoever on the reality around you, while your continued denial of contradictory evidence could be indicative of Delusion:

delusion noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1.
... a. The act or process of deluding.
... b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

So how do you explain the dimorphism in hair patterns between males and females in humans and the lack of sexual dimorphism in hair patterns between males and females in marine mammals from heavily furred seals to bare whales.

If you cannot explain the dimporphism, then your conjecture cannot explain the apparent hairlessness of humans, no matter what your conjecture involves.

In other words, your conjecture is dead in the water.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ,


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 8:25 PM arrogantape has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 10:10 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 132 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 10:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 127 of 202 (508736)
05-15-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 8:25 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
arrogantape writes:

I don't think claiming we all have just as much hair as chimp is constructive in this debate. Having peach fuzz is what makes us look naked. In the water, the peach fuzz has negligable drag. Olympian swimmer have noted faster times swimming nude.

Except all humans don't have "Peach Fuzz" Some humans particularly Northern & Central European Have quite a bit more than humans from other areas. I wouldn't call the body hair, that I have, peach fuzz.
Dark hair everywhere except the palms of my hands and the bottoms of my feet. If I need an EKG, the medical people have to bring out a razor to get rid of some of the hair to get a good contact.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing /


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 8:25 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 9:16 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 128 of 202 (508739)
05-15-2009 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by bluescat48
05-15-2009 9:06 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
Bluescat48, another thing to note:

Olympian swimmer have noted faster times swimming nude.

It is common practice for swimmers to shave their entire bodies in order to remove the "peach fuzz" that does, indeed, cause drag.

The US Navy has spent a considerable amount of tax dollars investigating drag on ships and submarines, they have modelled the skin of sharks and whales, but they have not modeled "peach fuzz"

Racing sailboats have also spent a lot of time and effort at reducing drag on their vessels, including (but not limited to) scraping off the "peach fuzz" that grows from some forms of algae.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty of who to whom


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 9:06 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 9:22 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 129 of 202 (508740)
05-15-2009 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
05-15-2009 9:16 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
Question to RAZD

What part of my comment are you referring to?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 9:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 10:04 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 130 of 202 (508743)
05-15-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by bluescat48
05-15-2009 9:22 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
The part where you shave for the EEG of course. :D

No, I was replying to AA through you, so we could share stories of furry boats, shaved ships and the sexual dimorphism of sailboats and submarines.

I trust the information was something to

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 9:22 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 131 of 202 (508744)
05-15-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
05-15-2009 9:05 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
RAZD

You obviously are not reading my writing very well. The hominid line is nearly infinitely shorter than that of porpoises or seals. Our ancestors were water dependent perhaps only for some hundred thousand years before Ergaster struck out overland.

In that early period of development we have an ancestor who fits the picture of an aquatic ape. Not only is it found leagues away from it's homeland, with no explanation how it accomplished that feat, it also retains a chimp's foot, except elongated.

Our line split from Homo Habilis long before H Florensius found the island of Flores. We had the next 250,000 years to be modified into our present state. It isn't unusual at all for a separated population to acquire some regressive traits, like more hair.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 9:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 1:07 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2025 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 132 of 202 (508745)
05-15-2009 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
05-15-2009 9:05 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
So we have vestigial hair. Peach fuzz is a far cry from chimp fur. Chimp hair is a drag when swimming. It's like you wearing mohair sweater. There is hair, then their is hair. One long and shaggy, the other fine peach fuzz. One goes through the water much faster. H Habilis made it to Indonesia with flipper feet. What do you think? Was he furry, like a chimp? Or was he finely peach fuzzed. This is a no brainer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2009 9:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 12:45 AM arrogantape has not yet responded
 Message 135 by bluescat48, posted 05-16-2009 1:19 AM arrogantape has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 133 of 202 (508756)
05-16-2009 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 10:16 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism -- still no response?
Hi arrogantape,

Message 131

You obviously are not reading my writing very well.

Ah yes, attack the messanger instead of dealing with the message. Let me repeat it, and see if it sinks in a little more:

Message 126

So how do you explain the dimorphism in hair patterns between males and females in humans and the lack of sexual dimorphism in hair patterns between males and females in marine mammals from heavily furred seals to bare whales.

If you cannot explain the dimporphism, then your conjecture cannot explain the apparent hairlessness of humans, no matter what your conjecture involves.

In other words, your conjecture is dead in the water.

I am reading your messages very well, every one full of arrogant assertion and devoid of evidence, and completely ignoring the evidence that shows your argument to be irrelevant, refuted, falsified.

I predict that soon you will see a post from an Admin, telling you to substantiate your claims with evidence, rather than adding more assertions. They may also advise you to deal with the issues that people raise, rather than repeat discredited assertions.

Question: why can't you explain the sexual dimorphism?

Answer: because your conjecture is false.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 10:16 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18259
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 134 of 202 (508757)
05-16-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 10:10 PM


4 = infinity???
On another note, arrogantape

The hominid line is nearly infinitely shorter than that of porpoises or seals.

The common ancestor for humans and chimps is accepted to be ~6 million years ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8012322.stm

'Missing link' fossil seal walked
Writing in the journal Nature, scientists suggest the 23 million-year-old proto-seal would have walked on land and swum in fresh water.

Curiously, I don't count a factor of 4 as infinity - if it took 23 million years to get from this shore living walking mammal to a seal: we don't know what they looked like 6 million years later, but I'll bet they were more seal-like than otter like.

What I see is absolutely NO evidence of any aquatic adaptation in humans, especially humans that have lived along shores long after H floresiensis made it to this island.

Our line split from Homo Habilis long before H Florensius found the island of Flores. We had the next 250,000 years to be modified into our present state. It isn't unusual at all for a separated population to acquire some regressive traits, like more hair.

So why haven't the hominids that continued to live along sea-shores not become more adapted to the aquatic existence if we have regressed?

You argue that we've had time to regress in 1/4million years, but our ancestors did not have time to develop special adaptations like seals have over 6 million years? That's a factor of 24 ... special pleading anyone?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 10:10 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 135 of 202 (508758)
05-16-2009 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 10:16 PM


Re: A simple question ... dimorphism
quote:
Was he furry, like a chimp? Or was he finely peach fuzzed. This is a no brainer.

Where is your evidence that Habilis wasn't hairy?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 10:16 PM arrogantape has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by arrogantape, posted 05-16-2009 11:40 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017